Two Sundays ago, I asked readers to imagine being the editor responsible for coverage of news events that raised ethics questions. A dozen or so sent in responses. Less than the thousands that I had hoped for, but the quality of the answers more than made up for the lack of quantity.
Today we’ll look at readers’ sensibilities compared with those of the news staff. The fictional scenarios presented here are based on events that were reported in the news media, though not necessarily in The Courant.
The Murder
Scenario 1: Your reporter has been following a high-profile murder trial. The father of the victim tells her, “It’s terrible what drugs do to people. He killed my daughter, but I blame the drugs.” Is it OK to use the quote?
Eighty percent, 12 out of 15, said they would use the quote, following the reasoning that Roger Leduc of Putnam offered: “The typical reader should be discerning enough to appreciate that the father of the murder victim has a bias against the accused, and I think a person selected for jury duty would expect to see that bias from him and not have it affect deliberations.”
The news staff more or less agreed. Eight of the 12 editors who were asked said they would use the quote.
State Editor Lynne DeLucia appreciated the texture the quote added to coverage of the trial. “I would use the quote if during the course of the trial the defendant’s drug use has come out in testimony. I think what’s interesting is that this father has compassion for this man – and I think that’s newsworthy.”
On the other hand, Deputy State Editor Paul Stern, who was the editor on a similar story, said, “I would be disinclined to publish this remark if it were made to me privately. It’s from a biased source, convicts the accused of the killing without apparent basis and accuses him of using drugs. These drawbacks outweigh the insight into the father’s thinking that readers would gain from publishing the comment.”
The Picture
Scenario 2: Your photographer is on the scene when a college student jumps from a high-rise building. He brings the pictures to you. Would you publish it?
Readers were against publishing the picture 2 to 1, while the newsroom was divided. The majority of those who said they would use the picture, either on the front page or inside the paper, to bring attention to the problem of suicides on campus cautioned against using grossly offensive shots. Those who thought publishing the pictures would be completely unacceptable shared the sentiments of Kevin Marton of South Windsor: “To publish them would be ghoulish, mean, disrespectful exploitation of personal tragedy. … If I were the editor, I would ask myself if it were possible that the ongoing publicity about suicides might possibly motivate them.”
In fact, the National Institute of Mental Health does report that exposure to suicidal behavior through media reports “can result in an increase in suicide and suicidal behaviors.” The institute suggests that the risk of copycat suicides can be “minimized by factual and concise media reports of suicide,” avoiding repetitive reports and refraining from “oversimplified explanations such as recent negative life events or acute stressors.”
The No-Brainer
Scenario 3: At a public hearing on a proposal to sanction same-sex marriages, a member of the public tells a legislative committee about her life as a transsexual. The reporter covering the hearing comes back with a story focusing on her testimony. As you edit the story, Ms. Public calls the newsroom to say she doesn’t want her story in the newspaper. What would you do?
Although four readers said they would spike the story, most understood that Ms. Public has no grounds to request that the newspaper not publish her name given that she testified at a public forum. Some said they would allow her a pseudonym.
“Assuming that she identified herself to the committee and didn’t wear a hood to conceal her identity, publish her testimony and story,” Larry Gavrich of Avon said. “On the other hand, if she revealed her identity only to the reporter and now has a change of heart about the story, I’d publish it without her identity disclosed and indeed make her change of heart part of the story, which makes a stronger point about her situation than outing her with her neighbors.”
Those polled in the newsroom had some sympathy for Ms. Public, but only one would give her an out. Deputy State Editor Stern, who was also the editor on a story similar to this one, said: “When she called after the hearing, she admitted to me that she not only gave her name to our reporter after the hearing, but also publicly gave it to the legislative panel. I explained to her that we wouldn’t shield witnesses at public hearings as a matter of principle. And as a matter of practicality, it is impossible anyway, since there are many media outlets distributing the information. I tried to reassure her that she has nothing to be ashamed of by testifying and that, in fact, she displayed considerable courage in doing so.”
So there is some compassion in the newsroom. Although hardly a scientific study, the responses to the exercise show that the news staff and readers aren’t so far apart on ethics issues.
